/sci/ - Science & Math

>whats ON THE OTHER SIDE

On the other side of what?

>>1461011
>On the other side of what?

On the what side of the other.

>>1461015
what?

They are a singularity in the equations for general relativity.

We assume they exist because they explain some observed phenomena.

My personal opinion is that they don't exist, and are just an artifact of our lack of understanding, much like epicycles and deferents used to be.

On the other side of black holes is more space, duh.

well, if you're talking on the other side of the events horizon, then there's xboxhueg gravity
if you're talking about the singularity, no idea

>>1461022

That explains the gravitational lensing and accretion disks that we've directly observed that are caused by these things, eh?

>>1461022
>We assume they exist because they explain some observed phenomena.

>We assume they exist

>assume

WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING.JPG

Are black holes really 2 dimensional like the picture shows them?

>>1461022

>assume

Eh, we've already proven that black holes exist. We cannot directly observe them, but seriously, we can't directly observe gravity (Just the effects), or atoms, or evolution, but they have been proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

black holes is where the shit comes out

>>1461038
You can't really know they exist without evidence.
I mean, just the concept of a "singularity" where all known laws of physics fail is kinda hard to accept.
mmm
I know!

Singularities are the manifestation of God!
Now, off to make a new religion.

>>1461040

They pull in all directions but conservation of angular momentum causes the disk to be flattened.

>>1461057
>without evidence
but... there's quite a bit of evidence that's already been stated in this thread.

>>1461055
you mean.. goes in?

>>1461007
nothing's on the other side.
that's the point.. no light can make it's way through.

>>1461007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

There you go. You're welcome, OP.

>>1461055
no, you're thinking of a white hole

>>1461057
there is evidence son, and it has already been pointed out in some posts itt.

there ARE observational evidence that prove the existence of black holes.

>>1461034
Could be something else with very large mass and low visibility.

Explain why GR allows for white holes as well, but nothing similar has ever been observed?

I refuse to believe physics allows for singularities, sure, we might have incredibly massive objects that behave much like black holes, but singularity? Count me out.

Also, that's like just my opinion, man.

>>1461038

>implying we have direct observations of black holes.

>>1461076
No, I'm pretty sure he is thinking about his butt.

>>1461080

>You can't see black holes, therefore they don't exist
>Doesn't realize their surface escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Alternatively.
>You can't see black holes, therefore they don't existtherefore
>IMMA STICK MY HAND IN THE LHC'S PROTON BEAM, PROTONS ARE INSIVIBLE SO THEY DON'T EXIST

>>1461080
>implying we have direct observations of black holes.

says who something can only be proven by direct observation?

can you see a proton? can you see a neutron? can you see an electron? can you see quarks?

no.

does that mean they do not exist?

I read somewhere in Popular Science that its possible to be stuck in time or something in a Black Hole. There's a point in the spiral of the black hole or something where if you hit it at the right angle, time is warped to slow down or some shit, and everything there pretty much just stops.

I dont remember the details, but thats what I remember reading.

It probably shit

>>1461079
Not black holes, singularities.
learn2reading comprehension

You know, when I was a kid, I had this stupid theory about blackholes.

I thought they were a tear in our universe. Think of it like this.

Imagine you lived in a 2d world, like a piece of paper. You had no concept of 3d or 4d or w/e.

Now some prick pokes a hole in your piece of paper. You see the hole, and u can fall through it, but you wouldnt be able to fanthom the 3d as you fell through.

We live in a 3d? 4d? I forget which one. But when I was a kid, I thought black holes were the same in concept, so it was just a hole in our universe that we couldnt understand cause we cant fanthom the concept of 5d or 6d or w/e.

thats my little rant, lol im stupid

>>1461097
Yeah, due to special relativity or some shit, the closer you go to a black hole, the slower time goes. So if you get right up next to that bitch, if you ever escape the pull, it'd be like 500 years in the future.

I think that calling them black holes in itself is very misleading.

>>1461105
black holes are singularities.

what the fuck are you talking about?

well, i suppose i really need some reading comprehension classes as i can't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

>>1461111
Nice get and that's actually an interesting idea.

>>1461115
And from someone observing from the outside, once you got right up to the event horizon, it would look like you are frozen in time, despite the fact that you were probably ripped apart by the tidal forces much earlier.

do black holes have anything to do with wormholes?

like are wormholes inside black hole.
sorry if i sound stupid.

>>1461129
Black holes are not singularities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c&videos=G_3lneaG_Sk

>>1461097
that's right, but time never stops, it might slow down considerably, but it will never really stop, no matter at what 'angle' you are.

this effect is due to gravitational time dilation which is explained by general and special relativity.

>>1461111
o.O Interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c

>>1461034
>gravitational micro lensing
curvature of space
> accretion disks
gravity/curvature of space.

>>1461147
>''the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole''

dude at least read what you post, you're just making yourself look dumber.

>>1461111
fUCK YEAH 1111

>>1461129
lol singularities and infinities and bosons and

>>1461162
You, sir, are an idiot.
There is, supposedly, a singularity <span class="math">inside[/spoiler] a black hole. The black hole is not the singularity. You can explain what happens between the events horizon and the singularity with general relativity. You can't explain the singularity.

>>1461156
o.o

>>1461145
No they don't really have anything to do with each other. Scientists theorize that wormholes exist at the quantum level. They may spring into existence for a fraction of time in the quantum foam.

There's really no known way to keep them open for longer or to get them any larger.

>>1461169
i like that experiment. is that a college level experiment?

>>1461183
yes there is.

>>1461111
I liked this but then
>My face when Kaku would love this.

>>1461189
[citation needed]

>>1461189
how?

>>1461194
there is a way to keep them open but is purely theoretical.

>>1461198
[citation needed]
yet again.

>>1461202
exotic matter

>>1461169
who are these girls?

>>1461202
You require some form of as yet unknown matter with a negative energy.

But if you have negative energy then you could make an alcubierre drive and save energy.

>>1461192
whose kaku?

>>1461007
there is no ultimate proof that gravity exists , there is no way to connect , three gauge interactions don't work well with gracity theory , General relativity dont work with Quantum mechanics. Hawking radiation tries to uniy GR with QM but it dont work with Conservation of energy for matter . NOTHING IS TRUE its just a bunch of theories , just crazytalk , we cannot understand complex universe for now

>>1461209
>You require some form of as yet unknown matter with a negative energy.

>yet unknown

well said. 'yet unknown' not impossible. that's why it's theoretical.

who knows what the future holds?

>>1461207
Scientists who are conducting an experiment.

>>1461234
Ill add some : General relativity sucks if it comes to big bang , seconds after big bang , it also dont work with "Planck length" sized Volumes

>>1461111

I used to think this too.

OP, there is nothing on "the other side"

Think of it as a planet that once you get near, there's no getting away. But it's not a planet, that's just an example.

>>1461280
>>1461280
agreed, another great bullshit trio:
General relativity , grassman algebra and superstring theory

>>1461236
I hate to use the term "it's impossible" for anything now.

Fuck if this was the dark ages and someone told me they have created a piece of glass capable of focusing light and allowing me to see into the night sky I'd have punch him on the throat and called it heresy, but look at us now, we have concave and convex lenses allowing us to see into other galaxies and all the way back to the opaque plasma of the big bang.

It'll happen at some time, almost guaranteed given a long enough time scale and large enough collaborative effort.

>>1461295
>>1461280
>>1461234
its me samefagging , but i can see common folks are no match for me in science . go fap to your cats and die in your basements fags

>>1461295
>superstring theory

>bullshit

ok genius. so why don't you come up with something better instead of just criticizing it? we really need some bright minds right now, so why don't you get your lazy ass up and do something about it?

>>1461316
>>1461316
there is no dark enegry , dark matter or negative enegry wtf?? this is fiction invented for false XIX theories

>>1461264
yes, but what are these scientist's names?

>>1461111
4d is when cinemaxx throw water and air in your face, while showing you a 3d movie duh

>>1461336
Oh, sorry, somebody once told me that 4d was 3d with time, so thats what we live in right? we're 3 dimensional with time?

>>1461323
ok i agree that superstring theory in M modification by Witten is most reasonable but its just guessing . We barely know things about quarks , and superstring theory oscilates in planck volumes . its out of reach for now

>>1461370
>most reasonable
for unification ofcoruse

>>1461007

Muddafuckin Michio Kaku.
Straight up BAMF

>>1461366
Indeed we do, as what I know of. Maybe its all just a joke to us, as we observe everything in 3d but actually lives in 2d? Im so confused!
I allways thought blackholes was something dirty?

>>1461370
>superstring theory oscilates in planck volumes

girlslaughing.exe

>>1461328
Who's to say that's a negative force?

Dark energy could be the force applied by the vacuum of space, only noticeable when in high concentrations such as deep space between galaxies, and this could make it a positive propulsive force, a positive pushing force instead of it pulling galaxies.

Also

There's too many puppieeeees

With guns in their hands.

This is a picture of a black hole.
It has cost the world literally HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS to build and its all going to crash into planet Earth very very soon.

What a waste of money. Maybe if we had spent that money on affordable houses, or treating 3rd world diseases, combatting drug addiction and child poverty we could all be living a much more decent life.

As it is the powers that be have built a false God in the sky, and the real God will show us what he thinks of this false idol.

>>1461394
yes fucker - 10-35m
it is 10^20 smaller than single proton
so gtfo with your ignorance

>>1461417
>superstring theory oscilates in planck volume

ohwaityoureseriousletmelaughharder.jpg

>>1461394
he is right theory says that particles are strings which in size are close to the planck lenght

>>1461414
>Uses a computer
>"treat 3rd world diseases" "be living a better life"
>Clear troll but I genuinely wonder how fixing an african issue somehow helps the 1st world.

>>1461394
>girlslaughing.exe

>.exe

wtfamireading.jpg

>>1461447

>this guy doesn't get the joke

ultimatelaughingwhores.divx

>>1461423
>Laughs like he's right
>My face when he's wrong

>>1461147 Black holes are not singularities.
Yes they are. The Schwarzschild metric is divergent at r=0 in any coordinate system.

>>1461445
Why do people allways tend to forget the second world!?

>>1461414
This is a post of a black hole.
It has cost his parents literally HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of DOLLARS to raise and its not going to leave the house very soon.

What a waste of money. Maybe if they had spent that money on affordable houses, or treating 3rd world diseases, combatting drug addiction and child poverty they could all be living a much more decent life.

As it is the powers that be have shit a tin god in the basement, and the real God will show us what he thinks of this false idol.

>>1461457
>thinks i'm arguing the length scale that superstring theory works on
>doesn't realise i'm laughing at his retarded statement, obviously made by someone with very little/no scientific background
>mfw

>>1461480
>troll harder

(I wonder whether one of the string theory advocates in here actually knows anything about it. Like, what's the operation of minimizing the world sheet called)

>>1461480
>u mad?

http://www.youtube.com/user/SpaceRip

>>1461512
< For you <3

Welcome.

>>1461480
>My face when you realised you're wrong and trying to defend your idiotic actions as you lose face.

>>1461498
you must be joking. but the flip side is about 0.1% of the people against are educated enough to make such judgements for themselves.

lol, everytime someone starts a string thread (for or against, I'm neither) I just ask them if the Polyakov action is invariant under Lorentz transformations. Pretty much the first thing I learnt in the course I took (wasn't a course on solely on String theory, but it did cover some basic concepts)

To all the people who it may concern ITT (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not samefagging)

How exactly does a theory oscillate in a given volume?

>>1461573
>How exactly does a theory oscillate in a given volume?

So you're gonna be that guy are you?

>>1461573
well i believe that somefag, who is not native english speaker , used sequence that is correct in his language - and he just translated it . no big deal

>>1461558
I like you. Here we go:
There are sometimes people that claim to have degrees in physics/math/... here. I'm looking for questions that are so fundamental it's impossible not to know them if you have any idea about what you claim to have majored in.
- Why is energy conserved in a closed system?
- Why was <span class="math">\dot\vec E[/spoiler] introduced into the Maxwell equations?
- How many Maxwell equations are there? (Love this one. Basically, there are 3 correct answers, and for each of those correct answers, you can find a counter argument. If it's a fake degree, this is where you win.)

>>1461620
haha yep. I'm not into one-up-manship, which it sometimes comes across as, but I do enjoy weeding out the phoney grad students. The google-fu is strong in some, so they can sometimes reply what they deem as half decently which just adds to the lols. .

I don't understand why people do it, I would never punch above my intellectual weight, you're not going to learn anything and you're only going to embarrass yourself.

>>1461648
also, it's an anonymous board. it isn't like pretending to be knowledgeable will impress anyone.

>>1461648
By the way, do you know a reason for the Pauli principle? "Because" doesn't seem very fundamental to me.

>>1461679

Because of math. Two particles can't have the same quantum number kind of like how you can't divide by zero.

>>1461679
Nope.
I'll point out now that I'm a maths grad, so every physics course I've taken (QM,QFT,SR,GR) were ran by my universities maths department, where we didn't spend much time dwelling on the physical reasons for everything, which is kicking my ass now (doing a th. physics masters)

For me the reason is because it falls out of the mathematics!

What is the physics behind it? I understand it's implications and that, but why is it true?

>>1461694
I do so hope you're not the same guy as above.

>>1461054
Actually we do directly observe atoms and evolution in the lab. Sometimes both at once when working with ecoli.

>>1461726
Aaah, goood. The other post gave me the 4chan smartass creeps again.

The "falls out of the maths" reason isn't very satisfying for me, as there is per se no maths in physics, it's an added structure that helps dealing with the fundamental laws. Symmetry is an intrinsic property of the system, the mathematics are just used to deduct laws from that assumption.

>>1461759
Fundamental assumption example: Principle of least action.

>>1461759
I think that's where physicists and mathematicians bifurcate, where they draw satisfaction.

Although for me, when I first started finding out about the fundamental role of symmetries in nature, and how group theory actually has application/relevance (groups was my favourite course at undergrad), I was extremely satisfied and awe struck.

>>1461726
>>1461759
This is the first smart conversation i heard on sci!

P.S. The "falls out of the math" part is what I love of QM, when you derive the equations the properties just appear without having to reverence the physical situation.

>>1461774
Symmetries yaaay! I'm just getting into gauge theories, but the effects of such simple assumptions are just awesome.

>>1461463
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126
>95 x 126

>>1461397
This is pretty much what people say about dark energy, but using different words.

>>1461726
That made me think, it's actually funny how I'm always unsure how rigorous I want my theories. I mean I hate the experimental approach of abusing the math as the salt to justify experimental data, but the real hardcore math does look scary as well. Not because it's particularly hard, you can have that in any science, but because so much of it seems so unnecessary. I know I'm on the way of saying something really stupid now, but let's give an example: When a theoretical physicist uses a function, he says it's a nice function and then he can do whatever one can do with nice functions. For a math person, "nice function" means "infinitely differentiable on a compact oriented region in ...". Both of them are talking about the same thing for sure, and many theorists even know that, but there's no necessity of using it in that overly precise way every time.

>>1461821
This is true.
When I started my dissertation I struggled so much at first when reading the literature. It was the first time I ever had to read strictly physics articles and I really struggled.

I could never tell what assumptions were being made unless they were absolutely explicitly stated, and I could never tell if values that cropped up in between steps were derived mathematically or experimentally.

But it is nice now I have the hang of it, I can tell what assumptions I can make and what ones I can make without stating, and the best thing of it all is I don't have an overly anal analysis tutor to please anymore ;p

>>1461853
What's your topic if I may ask? Sounds like mathematical physics from what you've written.

>>1461867
Collisionally inhomogeneous Bose Einstein condensates. I'm more concerned with the numerics and perturbation analysis behind it all.

A lot of the papers I use are theoretical AND experimental ones, which is where the confusion started for me.

>>1461875
So yeh, it is mathematical physics.

>>1461875 Bose Einstein condensates
Now I know why you don't know where the Pauli principle comes from ;P
How much of your work would you say is actually applied programming, how much is doing math/theory? That's something that bothers me the most about physics: Messing with machines is cool, but analyzing data is a pain. Doing mathematical physics teaches you fundamental things about the physical universe, but you never get in touch with what you're working with all the time. Well, and then there are manybody physicists that program all their work, which looks like experimental theoretical physics. The computer does the experiments, the theorist writes the machines.
What I'd love is deriving stuff and using machines without the stuff in between. (Hey, let me dream!)

>phd in mathematics
> any job i want
>300k starting

>>1461902
A lot of it is modelling, so yeh many an m-file have come and gone.

I'm kinda new to the field, but from talking with my advisor it seems that BECs seem to have so much theoretical programming-y type researchers because experiments are incredibly expensive to set up and it's quite hard to convince experimenters to test your hypothesis.

The stuff I'm working on at the moment is __hopefully__ going to be tested out in the states at some point next year. That's if my analysis is sufficient and promising enough.

I have to say I probably won't look into BECs in the future. I never liked numerics at undergrad and it's not really interesting enough for me to pursue any further. On the plus side, there are sooooo many research opportunities when it comes to BECs

>>1461910
You'll need it with those teeth.

>>1461944
"In the future" as in "after your PhD"?
I've seen a talk by a manybody physicist from india who calculated band structures etc, that really gave me the creeps. I seriously don't know how anyone can like solid state physics, and additionally numerical Schroedinger equations.

Meh, gotta go to bed now. If you feel like talking on, my eMail may be a rubbish address, but I have a look at it from time to time. :)